October 27, 2012

Obama's Benghazi Gate and the Blood Encrusted Gun

Benghazi Hero Tyrone Woods

Recent news revelations from a variety of sources outline at least three major problems regarding the Obama administration's explanations of the Benghazi consulate attack in September. And, despite the heroism of Tyrone Woods, there is little if any acknowledgment of the former Navy SEAL's sacrificial actions. I'm not a republican and I'm not a democrat. I simply find the facts of this case to be of importance. 1. Firstly, there was no 'spontaneous mob riot' at the Benghazi consulate that was supposedly caused by an anti-Islam Youtube video. Government emails obtained by CNN news highlight the fact that within 2 hours of the attack the White House knew a specific terrorist organization was taking responsibility. Yet, for about a week, this 'spontaneous riot' story was the official explanation of the White House. 2. Secondly, there was instantaneous and continuing cell-phone communication as the attack commenced. There were detailed emails. And according to CBS News, "hours after the attack began, an unmanned Predator drone was sent over the U.S. mission in Benghazi." At least one Predator drone was noted over the consulate filming everything in real time. On the ground, US military actually had the terrorist mortar targets painted and ready for a strike, however, someone gave the orders not to destroy the enemy armaments that eventually killed the Americans. Despite all of the recent information, Obama and the CIA are reluctant to state who made the decision to stand down. CIA head Leon Panetta continue to claim that "officials did not have enough information" in order to allow prepared military forces to respond. What is actually needed - a script neatly typed out by the enemy?
3. In a recent Yahoo article, Obama was quoted as saying, "I've always been straight with the American people." and "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight." In the Yahoo article, Obama doesn't mention the released CNN emails that contradict his 'spontaneous riot' story. He doesn't mention the overhead drones and the cell-phone contact supplying real-time information. He doesn't mention Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith are dead because the Obama administration failed in both preparation and response. Obama hasn't offered any valid reasons as to why the American people were lied to and told a spontaneous riot broke out instead of the truth, that a specific terrorist organization took responsibility for a planned attack. And, as new revelations are made, Obama seems to be looking for a scapegoat.
Ever since the Gulf War and Operation Desert Storm, anyone who has ever witnessed the MSM news during the first strikes of these wars knows that US air strikes and gun strikes are executed these days with the utmost of accuracy. We know that the US security personnel in Benghazi had painted a laser mark on the attackers outside the consulate. This mark would have made possible a response by the two drones or the AC-130 gunship a matter of routine had they been given permission to respond. The main problem was that they were told repeatedly to stand down.
Breitbart news outlines, "Obama says he was doing everything he could, and Panetta says we didn't react more strongly because we weren't sure what was going on. Yet we now know two drones were sending back video of the attack in real time, and at least one of those drones may have been armed. We also know a massive AC-130 gunship could have been used for backup as well, but it was not. And we know that security was begging for backup and even marking targets with lasers for the drones and/or gunship so they could make quick work of the attackers. Yet Obama chose not to respond, and that's the bottom line."
The criticism comes from sources of the utmost experience. Former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News, “They stood, and they watched, and our people died," --as noted by the New York Post. Fox news outlined how the CIA personnel on the ground near the US consulate prepared to intervene in the Benghazi attacks weretold at least two times to stand downas their fellow Americans were being attacked. Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said that he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold. The AFRICOM commander General Carter Ham had authority over Libya. Carter was never given the order to secure the benghazi consulate. Actually, he has the authority to secure US consulates unless directed otherwise. That means that Obama and Panetta, the only two over Carter in authority, had never issued the order to defend the consulate and likely had overridden Carter's advice to secure it. Carter was recently relieved of his command.Two sources have confirmed that US drones were in the area. On October 20, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reported that "A unmanned Predator drone was sent to Benghazi, and the drone observed the final hours of the attack. The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from central Europe to Naval Air Station Sigonella; other nearby military forces available were fighter jets and AC-130 gunships." On October 24, Jennifer Griffin of Fox reported, "Ambassador Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi at the time, retired to his room at about 9 pm and about 40 minutes later gunfire and explosions were heard near the front gate. A Predator drone that was already performing Libyan surveillance missions was moved into position over the compound."If US drones were in the area, and if intelligence was supposedly inadequate, why weren't drones sent immediately to the state of emergency?

According to Fox, "Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Drones can both film and attack.

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight. At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied." We won't be able to hear what Tyrone Woods has to say about the incident because he is no longer with us. "At 4 a.m. local time on Sept. 11 — six hours and 20 minutes after the initial attack began — former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed at the CIA annex not far from the consulate by a mortar shell. The machine gun they were firing was encrusted with blood, an indication they continued to fight after being wounded." One would think that MSM news outlets would find it fitting to honor heroes such as Tyrone Woods who sacrificed their lives gallantly for others. However, instead of honoring such heroes and outlining the facts about what occurred at Benghazi, amazingly, my Yahoo site this morning offered a story and image of Barack Obama dancing as a main story while the Benghazi scandal is being played out.

We now know that the Obama administration knew in real time what was occurring and did nothing. According to a Forbes article, "The attack began on September 11, at about 10:00 p.m. Libyan time (4:00 p.m. in Washington). Ambassador Chris Stevens and his small staff inside our consulate immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli." Cell phones offered an immediate warning of the Benghazi attack. It almost seems as though the Benghazi Consulate was set up for a disaster. Former Regional Security officer Eric Nordstrom stated, Benghazi security was "inappropriately low." But this was the fault of the Obama administration, not the Benghazi consulate. Not only was it low, it was inadequately trained. A US Consulate Libyan Guard stated, "Every Sunday… We Occasionally Received Practical Lessons, But They Did Not Include Shooting [Firearms]... There Was No Practical Training Per Se..."
Forbes Magazine outlined, "On August 2, 2012, Ambassador Stevens had asked for an additional 11 persons to be added to the security staff in the Benghazi consul. He wrote: “Due to the level of threat in regards to crime, political violence and terrorism, post feels this is an appropriate number of LES [locally employed staff] security personnel needed to further embassy diplomatic outreach missions. Violent security incidents continue to take place due to the lack of a coherent national Libyan security force and the strength of local militias and large numbers of armed groups.” "In 1984, President Reagan ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella within a 90 minute window while they were still airborne. The Obama national security team had several hours to move forces from that same air base to Benghazi. We deserve an explanation." Also of note, these days US laser guided weaponry is much more accurate. Laser-guided munitions use a laser designator to mark (illuminate) a target. The reflected laser light from the target is then detected by the seeker head of the weapon, which sends signals to the weapon's control surfaces to guide it toward the designated point. There is little if any collateral damage when engaging a target.
As I read about the heroes who gave their lives in Benghazi to save the lives of others, it only made me wonder why I see more attention given at my Yahoo splash page about Obama dancing with his daughter. The Canadian Free Press reports: "This is way bigger than Watergate. The only difference is that, this time, a corrupt administration is being protected by an equally corrupt media, completely determined to drag their anointed candidate across the election finish line before this scandal explodes. Such a despicable alliance is the stuff of totalitarian regimes."

A follow-up article by Forbes outlines how Benghazi Gate outlines a "shameful dereliction of duty." "The drone documents no crowds protesting any video." Forbes underscores.In an interview with Megyn Kelly, Tyrone Woods' father Charles went so far as to call those responsible for calling the stand down orders murderers, saying "they actually had laser targets focused on the mortars that were being sent to kill my son and they refused to pull the trigger."In the same interview, Tyrone's father underscored the fact he was not politicizing the events: "Well, thank you, I appreciate your introduction, and I do want to reiterate and really emphasize again that this is not about politics. If it were about politics, it would dishonor my son’s death. This has to do with honor, integrity and justice."

Considering all that has been documented, this is unfolding as Obama's mini-9/11 meltdown, a gross dereliction of duty and perhaps beyond. It's no longer just about an election, now it's about unconscionable gross negligence.Update 11/18/12: There is a media storm presently regarding damning quotes by "now-disgraced" formerCIAdirectorDavid Petraeus . Don't expect any serious investigation into the truth of Benghazi. Since 9/11, the US government has been ensconced in the "State Secrets Privilege Act" and whenever anything threatens to expose elements of the shadow government the mantra is repeated, "We can have no investigation beyond this point because it would reveal secrets that threaten national security." George Bush Jr. broke so many laws he should be wearing a permanent pin striped suit. http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/02/christian-hugs-and-handcuffs-for.htmlThe Founding Fathers recognized that a system of checks and balances was necessary to guard against corrupt human nature. The sheeple bought the lie that we are safer when a shadow government operates in complete secrecy in order to protect us from cave-dwelling boogie men terrorist masterminds. So, the sheeple can yawn and go back to sleep again. Petraeus will most likely lead to nothing substantial. It wouldn't be allowed and the sheeple don't want to be distracted from Monday Night Football or Dancing with the Stars for any longer than the commercial breaks would allow. Tags: Benghazi emails, Obama Benghazi quotes, I am straight with the American people, clear with the American people. CIA ordered to stand down 3 times, CBS Benghazi emails, Benghazi cell phone warnings immediate warning of Benghazi attack, Obama's gross negligence, 9/11 part 2, dereliction of duty, heroes of Benghazi, laser targets focused on the mortars, Benghazi drones, Benghazi spontaneous mob riot story a lie, Obama was in the briefing room watching the attack, AFRICON Benghazi, David Petraeus scandal

57 comments:

Suprise, suprise... Rick, who has zero understanding of how the military works, has decided to be the armchair general and criticize the military.

1) The Pentagon has denied refusing to assist the troops in Benghazi.

2) There was a lack of information during the attack. Acting while being blind is a bad idea.

3) Sending your air force would have been useless at best or would have lead to the death of innocent civilians at worst (remeber, Benghazi has a population of something like 600 000 people). And if you think that just a few bombs is enough to scare away Jihadists who have spent a big part of their life on the battlefield, my condolences for your brain cells.

4) Sending ground forces is also a bad move. One has no idea what the enemy forces are and the possibility of an ambush is high. It is likely that reinforcements would have lead to additional casualties and we would have a dozen of victims instead of four. Rick and Fox would still have had a blast at the story for the military to charge in while being blind.

>Rick, who has zero understanding of how the military works, has decided to be the armchair general and criticize the military.

- Wrong - I'm not criticizing the military per se. I'm outlining specific lies and disinformation by the Obama administration in general. Those in the military aware of what was occurring were quite willing to respond effectively, but were denied that option. Because of the outright lies attempting to claim a spontaneous riot was the cause of the attacks, there is no reason to believe that Obama was out of the loop and not involved in the stand down orders.

1) The Pentagon has denied refusing to assist the troops in Benghazi.

- Panetta claimed there was not enough info.

2) There was a lack of information during the attack. Acting while being blind is a bad idea.

- Cell phone info, drones offering live real-time films, email updates... What do you need a typed script of the enemies plans? A completely bogus excuse.

Former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News, “They stood, and they watched, and our people died," --as noted by the New York Post.

3) Sending your air force would have been useless at best or would have lead to the death of innocent civilians at worst.

- Wrong. A precision strike of the mortar unit, already painted for a targeted strike, would have saved US lives and would have not harmed other civilians.

"Laser-guided munitions use a laser designator to mark (illuminate) a target. The reflected laser light from the target is then detected by the seeker head of the weapon, which sends signals to the weapon's control surfaces to guide it toward the designated point. There is little if any collateral damage when engaging a target."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb

>if you think that just a few bombs is enough to scare away Jihadists...

- You need to get your stories straight. There was no angry mob of Jihadists, that was a lie. There was a well planned attack by an Islamic organization with such capabilities as mortar weapon. The mortar target was painted with a laser target by US specialists allowing for a precision strike. But... there was a stand down call.

>Sending ground forces is also a bad move. One has no idea what the enemy forces are and the possibility of an ambush is high.

- The use of ground forces would have been one option of many. There were drones, there were plane capabilities.

BTW - You have not dared to address the initial lie by the Obama administration that a YouTube video caused a spontaneous riot at the consultant - a bald-faced lie.

quote: "Still no funeral for the "ambassador"Ridiculous drone stories at Bengasi and other scandal stories surrounding both Presidential candidates may be serving the purpose of causing people to riot at election time...http://jimstonefreelance.com/

-Your facts are off. The drones were there according to more than one source:

October 20: CBS News reported Congress members have asked why military assistance was not sent. General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta "looked at available options, and the ones we exercised had our military forces arrive in less than 24 hours, well ahead of timelines laid out in established policies." A unmanned Predator drone was sent to Benghazi, and the drone observed the final hours of the attack. The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from central Europe to Naval Air Station Sigonella; other nearby military forces available were fighter jets and AC-130 gunships. Gary Berntsen stated, "They made zero adjustments in this. They stood and they watched and our people died." - Sharyl Attkisson (20 October 2012). "Could U.S. military have helped during Libya attack?". CBS This Morning. Retrieved 22 October 2012.

October 24: "Ambassador Stevens, who was visiting Benghazi at the time, retired to his room at about 9 pm and about 40 minutes later gunfire and explosions were heard near the front gate. A Predator drone that was already performing Libyan surveillance missions was moved into position over the compound." - Jennifer Griffin, US military's response questioned in wake FOX News 24 October 2012

R:Those in the military aware of what was occurring were quite willing to respond effectively, but were denied that option

Wrong. Those were ground troops who could not have complete knowledge of the situation. A soldier can only have an idea of a narrow sector, being ignorant of the bigger picture. The marines disregarded orders and died because of it.

R:Panetta claimed there was not enough info.

And why would she lie? Besides, an investigation is being carried out. Though, I know that the result of that investigation will not calm your paranoia anyway.

R:Cell phone info, drones offering live real-time films, email updates... What do you need a typed script of the enemies plans? A completely bogus excuse.

And that comment shows that you have zero understanding of the military. Cell phones, drones, e-mails do not guarantee a complete picture. And in this case it did not it seems. The embassy was attacked by mobile groups of soldiers, constantly moving and changing locations in streets with civilians.

R:Wrong. A precision strike of the mortar unit, already painted for a targeted strike, would have saved US lives and would have not harmed other civilians.

The key word is "precision strike". What are you going to attack if you are not aware of the precise location of your enemy? It also seems that the victims from the embassy were not killed by the mortar, but by rifle fire. Hence, taking it out would not have changed anything in that respect. The military is not about shooting every single target one comes across.

R:You need to get your stories straight. There was no angry mob of Jihadists, that was a lie.

And you need to enrich your vocabulary. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/jihadA Jihadist is a warrior, fighting for Islam. That was a jihadist organization that attacked the embassy. And the attackers were professional soldiers who would not be discouraged by some bombs.

R:The use of ground forces would have been one option of many. There were drones, there were plane capabilities.

Again, you need precise coordinates for that. The mortar was not really harming anyone at the embassy it seems. And Tyroon Woods and Glen Doherty might still be alive if they did not act against orders. It seems the mortar could not harm the embassy, but had a clear shot at the CIA compound. The marines disrupted the chain of command, confused their officers, did not take into account the time needed for an air strike and the mobility of their enemy. A mortar can easily change its location and the enemy should have been experienced enough to do so after every few shots.

R:BTW - You have not dared to address the initial lie by the Obama administration that a YouTube video caused a spontaneous riot at the consultant - a bald-faced lie

Because I am not aware of the full story and you have a long history of distorting and lieing, Rick. But after looking into it, it turns out that the organization, who claimed responsibility, denied it the next day which likely led to a confusion. And Obama did speak of a terrorist attack at his first address. As expected, your accusations are ridiculous.

A mortar can easily change its location and the enemy should have been experienced enough to do so after every few shots.

Thank you for raising this point.

Do you think we should propose a double feature for Rick of "The Hurt Locker" and "Black Hawk Down" to see if he gets a clue about the risks of moving in urban environments with insufficient information?

>Rick, who has zero understanding of how the military works, has decided to be the armchair general and criticize the military.

- Wrong - I'm not criticizing the military per se. I'm outlining specific lies and disinformation by the Obama administration in general. Those in the military aware of what was occurring were quite willing to respond effectively, but were denied that option.

Funny; you have cited no one in the military -- the CIA is a civilian agency.

You also lay blame for weak embassy security on the Obama administration -- despite the fact that it was Republicans in Congress who refused to allow budget increases for Embassy security that the administration had asked for.

Because of the outright lies attempting to claim a spontaneous riot was the cause of the attacks, there is no reason to believe that Obama was out of the loop and not involved in the stand down orders.

There are plenty of reasons to believe it, especially given the timeframe of the attacks; I notice that, as usual, you try and conflate "They said something that I find untrustworthy *here*, therefore everything they say is untrustworthy, and the worst can be presumed of them."

2) There was a lack of information during the attack. Acting while being blind is a bad idea.

- Cell phone info, drones offering live real-time films, email updates... What do you need a typed script of the enemies plans? A completely bogus excuse.

Nonsense, given the scale of the response you're talking about. But we'll get to that later.

Remember, as you go into all of this; how would you feel if, say, Russian special forces troops opened up on a U.S. crowd they felt was threatening their embassy -- or Russian planes struck U.S. buildings in the same circumstance. Would that be OK? If not, then you need to explain why it's OK for the U.S. to do so, absent any Libyan approval, but not for someone else.

3) Sending your air force would have been useless at best or would have lead to the death of innocent civilians at worst.

- Wrong. A precision strike of the mortar unit, already painted for a targeted strike, would have saved US lives and would have not harmed other civilians.

"Laser-guided munitions use a laser designator to mark (illuminate) a target. The reflected laser light from the target is then detected by the seeker head of the weapon, which sends signals to the weapon's control surfaces to guide it toward the designated point. There is little if any collateral damage when engaging a target."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser-guided_bomb

And who do you think understood the situation better -- the commanders in the region, or a Wikipedia editor? There is *always* a risk of collateral damage, and you and I don't know how well-concealed or surrounded that mortar unit was.

>if you think that just a few bombs is enough to scare away Jihadists...

- You need to get your stories straight. There was no angry mob of Jihadists,

Where do you see him say "Angry mob"?

If there was a well-planned and co-ordinated attack, then a few bombs might well *not* have deterred trained professionals. And enough to ensure they were deterred or destroyed would have resulted in collateral damage.

Again, remember; this is talking about another country's sovereign airspace/ground space here.

Sending ground forces is also a bad move. One has no idea what the enemy forces are and the possibility of an ambush is high.

- The use of ground forces would have been one option of many. There were drones, there were plane capabilities.

And how many times have we heard "Oops; the drone missed, and took out a civilian target"?

You're second-guessing, based on the *presumption* that the administration has lied, and running with everything from there. Given your known support for other conspiracy theories, I suppose this shouldn't surprise me.

I:Do you think we should propose a double feature for Rick of "The Hurt Locker" and "Black Hawk Down" to see if he gets a clue about the risks of moving in urban environments with insufficient information?

You know better than anyone that being "right" for Rick is much more important than being correct. It took us with Havok several weeks to convince him that there is no evidence our universe was created ex nihilo. Rick was distorting the theorem of Vilenkin to make his point. He refused to accept any arguments or counterpoints from us and claimed that the theorem proved that the universe was created ex nihilo and the english language did not allow any other interpretention of the words of his source. Only an e-mail from the professor himself managed to make him give up on the nonsense.

I:And how many times have we heard "Oops; the drone missed, and took out a civilian target"?

In fact, drones are quite accurate, the chances of missing the target is close to zero. It is not about them missing their target we hear. We hear about drones striking civilian targets because of a failure from intelligence. It is extremely hard to make a distinction between soldiers, armed "civilians" and soldiers among civilians.

Let's see, "Black Hawk Down" - an attempt to capture Aidid's foreign minister Omar Salad Elmi and his top political advisor, Mohamed Hassan Awale during the Battle of Mogadishu where there were no defenses in place. A situation where there was no established perimeter and no armed resistance in place. A situation in which there was no live back-up waiting to assault enemy targets upon command with laser guided technology.

A little different from taking out a mortar target where a laser bead was already fixed upon the target near an established US embassy that did have (or was supposed to have if Obama and co. would have been doing their jobs) an established perimeter of defense and armed resistance.

Thank you for proving my point; Black Hawk Down was all about a massive failure of intelligene for a planned operation, and the results thereof.

And here we have, instead of a planned operation, what would have been a spur-of-the-moment injection of forces into an unknown, chaotic environment; sufficiently chaotic, clearly, that people writing about it weeks later have trouble getting their stories entirely straight.

So, if BHD went catastrophically wrong, how much more potential was there here?

I notice that you still haven't addressed the point that it was a Republican House that refused Obama's attempts to get more funding for embassy security. You repeatedly rail against the administration taking powers you feel it shouldn't, and yet, when they don't, you rail at them for failing. One would think you were just looking for an excuse to complain about the administration. ;)

Rick, here is your logic, in a syllogism (since you seem to love them).

P1. I can only vote for Obama or Romney for POTUSP2. I don't think Obama has been a good president.C. Therefore I must vote for Romney.

It's a complete non sequitur. Just because Obama hasn't been as good as you might like doesn't mean Romney would be any better.

And as has been pointed out to you a number of times, Romney and the GOP give every indication of being FAR worse than Obama has been or will be.

As imnotandrei has noted (and you've refused to acknowledge), it was the republicans who voted down an increase in Embassy security. It was also the republicans who voted in the NDAA you loath (they most likely wrote the sections you hate too, though I couldn't find links to support this claim). Romney and Ryan have lied and flip-flopped the entire campaign. The GOP economic plan will only benefit the 1%, and gouge everyone else.

Yet, even when faced with what seems plainly obvious, you still argue along tribal lines.

The Jihadists did not use mortars against the embassy. However, they did use them against the CIA compound and just for a few minutes (three volleys was fired, killing the marines). This was not enough time for the US air forces to react.

It also turns out that the diplomats died because of smoke asphyxation. It seems they got lost in the building while it was on fire. This would make more of an accident than a failure from the security.

Since I am too lazy to register an account, I will just respond here to Richard. The question if the universe needs an explanation or not is useless. The right question would be can the origin of the universe be explained or not? For now the answer would be that we do not know. And speculations about how improbable the big bang was are useless since we do not know the odds. Personnaly I am more inclined to believe in a multiverse theory (if a physical phenomena has happened once, it should happen again no matter how improbable the conditions are if we add infinity to the equation and matter does seem to be eternal). However, all this still needs to be proven, but the naturalistic hypothesis has an advantage before others. We have plenty of evidence for laws of physics and their impact on the world, but we have no evidence for a god. Besides, the god hypothesis does not explain in any way how the universe came to be and is useless for science.

Also, if Richard is trully interested in knowing when sentient life begins, he should just check biology text books. It is not the government that decides when sentient life begins. It is an observation from biology. Furthermore, it is not even a statement when life begins. It is statement about when life has definitely not begun and there is no moral reason to object an abortion.

I would not be able to even care if I was aborted in the first trimester.

R:I don't need a book. I have you. So, when has life not begun?

And that proves you have zero interest in the topic. Instead of doing your own research, you ask a layman to answer all the questions. 12 weeks seem to be the consensus.

R: a thing's heart is beating is it alive or dead?

Read my comment again if it did not sink in. The question if it is alive or not is irrelevant. Do you consider murder washing your habds with soap because it kills all those innocent bacteria? Do you understand that a heartbeat does not mean that the brain is functional? Not to mention that the heart develops only on week 9.

Do you have a reading disability like Rick Warden? Round two then... Would I have liked or not being aborted is nonsensical question since I would not be able to like or dislike things at that time. What counts is my immediate emotions and the emotions that come after. At the time I would no be able to have emotions, ditto for the time after being aborted. Hence, I would not care. Clear?

Furthermore, you smuggle the assumption I would be "killed" and I disagree with it.

R:Have you ever seen a baby being killed?

Nope and that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you mean videos of abortions, yes I have.

R:Would you kill a baby?

Highly unlikely. However, an accident can always happen.

R:Nice comparison. A fetus is now no different than bacteria. Nice mindset.

Nice way of distorting my words. Where did I say that a fetus is no different than a bacteria? If you cannot comprehend that being alive does not equate to being human, that is your own problem.

R:Congrats.

You re welcome. I am always happy to confirm christian hypocrisy and dishonesty

Instead of asking the same question again and again, do trouble yourself by pointing out what is exactly not clear.

R:Aren't you happy to be alive?

Not by much.

R:Would you have liked your mother to kill you?

And I have just told you it is a nonsensical question, the same nonsensical question as does the universe needs an explanation or not. I explained you in both cases why they are nonsensical questions. I have also told you I disagree with the term "killing", but you still use it.

Your question is like that. When did you stop beating your wife?

Learn to ask questions, dammit. You are not a preschooler. If you are unable to paraphrase the question, I guesse I will have to do it for you. Do I regret having been born? No. Would I regret not having been born? I would not be able to have emotions, hence I would not be able to feel regret.

I'm not presently serving as a pastor in the traditional sense of the word - over a particular church body. However, I am serving as one who is a watchman warning of danger, something general pastors often neglect. I wrote about this biblical role in a previous post:

In Ezekiel 33:1-6 the watchman warns of a physical threat: "The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman, and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people, then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand."

In Ezekiel 3:19 the underlying spiritual aspect of the watchman is emphasized: “Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.”

Notice that Ezekiel is primarily concerned with fulfilling his responsibility before God. His primary concern is not whether people take heed, panic or fall back into apathetic slumber. Their response is their own responsibility.

So, before you claim my posts are hateful, you might want to ask why. I am simply helping to expose corruption, lies and the ensuing danger these are bringing to our society, which used to hold a higher regard for the justice and civil liberties of the Constitution.

Short form: The intelligence services asked that their suspicions not be aired immediately to the public so that they could more effectively pursue the leads they had. Rather like how the police do not release all information on criminal investigations at once.

- Don't expect any serious investigation into the truth of Benghazi. Since 9/11, the US government has been ensconced in the "State Secrets Privilege Act" and whenever anything threatens to expose elements of the shadow government the mantra is repeated, "We can have no investigation beyond this point because it would reveal secrets that threaten national security."

George Bush Jr. broke so many laws he should be wearing a permanent pin striped suit.

The Founding Fathers recognized that a system of checks and balances was necessary to guard against corrupt human nature. The sheeple bought the lie that we are safer when a shadow government operates in complete secrecy in order to protect us from cave-dwelling boogie men terrorist masterminds.

So, the sheeple can yawn and go back to sleep again. Petraeus will most likely lead to nothing substantial. It wouldn't be allowed and the sheeple don't want to be distracted from Monday Bight Football or Dancing with the Stars for any longer than the commercial breaks would allow.

We've had closed-door congressional hearings, in which a lot of things were cleared up. What do you want, Rick? Full publication of all U.S. documents around the case, and national security and the lives of others be damned?

At some point, you have to trust someone, Rick; if you've decided that no one in government is trustworthy at all, that the system is fundamentally broken? That's your paranoia speaking, not rationality.

I should have guessed, when you started dragging out the word "sheeple", that you'd gone completely down the conspiracy theorist path; this is just more evidence.

What would it take to satisfy you about the "truth" of Benghazi? Who would you trust to make an unbiased, non-politicized investigation, which is what you seem to be asking for.

(Oh, and btw: "Sources and Methods" classifications are far, far older than 9/11; there was not some mythical era of complete transparency and government openness that we've abandoned.)

I love that McCain called a press conference to call for more investigation into the incident. The press conference was scheduled at the same time as a secret meeting investigating the incident. McCain chose to continue the press conference rather than go to the meeting investigating the incident.

I guess to McCain and those like him, the press and public opinion is more important than the actual investigation.